According to multiplesources, at 10 am today President Barack Obama will announce his decision to name Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Kagan, who served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. But this does not mean she is in any way a stranger to the Senate confirmation process. In fact, in 1995 she authored an article on judicial confirmations for the University of Chicago Law Review where she wrote:

The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction. Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. … [T]he fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings [is] the essential rightness—the legitimacy and the desirability—of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.

On this point, we find agreement with Ms. Kagan. As we documented first with the Justice Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, and again with the University of California at Berkeley law school Associate Dean Goodwin Liu hearings, President Obama’s leftist legal nominees have been completely unwilling and unable to defend their liberal legal views from Senate questioning. Instead they have retreated or renounced their past writings in an all too familiar spectacle that Kagan has said: “takes on an air of vacuity and farce.” We sincerely hope that Kagan continues to reject this model and that the U.S. Senate fulfills its proper advice and consent role. Responding to the news of Kagan’s nomination, Former Attorney General Ed Meese released the following statement:

First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

The American people agree. According to a national post-election 2008 survey of 800 actual voters, the polling company, inc. found that 70% of respondents preferred that judges not base their decisions on personal views and feelings. And according to the latest Quinnipiac University Poll by a 7 point margin more Americans believe the Supreme Court should only consider the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution instead of considering changing times and current realities. And finally, the latest Gallup poll shows that more Americans “would prefer a new Supreme Court justice who makes the court more conservative (42%) over one who would make the Court more liberal (27%).” Let’s hope the Senate gives the American people what they want.

Join The Discussion

Why would anyone think the senate would give the American people what we want? Experience should clearly show is that we can bet on them giving us what they want, because they know what is best for us. I hate to wish away six months of our lives but November can't come too soon for me!

Since when do politicians listen to the American voters? They lie to get elected, then forget about us until next election day. The sad part is that the people fall for the lies over and over and over!

Never sat on the bench, never wrote an opinion, not even a judge but ran the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General (the person who determines the legal position of the US in the Supreme Court)! None of these are qualifications to be a Justice of the Supreme Court and make decisions in the highest Court in the land. However, what a perfect match for President Obama – never ran anything, never participated in anything and only claim to fame is he was a Community Organizer.

If former AG Meese's criteria had been applied to every nominee, the Supreme Court would have continued to make decisions which upheld "states' rights" laws which allowed only property owners to vote, denied women and minorities the franchise, and held that the Pure Food and Drug Act (and similar "progressive" laws) were unconstitutional.

There is an absence of understanding of the evolution of the U.S. Constitution. It appears that some support judicial decisions when they agree with the decsions AND oppose when they differ.

'In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.”'

If this is true she will be on the court administering social justice not justice. Social justice elevates the despised and disadvantaged just because they're despised and disadvantaged. True justice is blind.

"Fragile as reason is and limited as law is as the expression of the institutionalized medium of reason, that's all we have standing between us and the tyranny of mere will and the cruelty of unbridled, undisciplined feeling."

I agree that we need more of a conservative person appointed to replace Justice Stevens. I found it laughable that Obama said how fair minded, openness to a broad ray of view points, & that she believes in a broad ray of perspective, as he does!!!??!! We need someone that follows the Constitution exactly as it was written & not curving it with her view points & desires.

She probably does not know what she is getting in for because if she did she would be running the other way. Obama has no respect or toleration of decisions made by the Supreme Court.

The US Constitution is not a "dead" set of words. It is a dynamic document geared to keep up with the times and needs of a dynamic society always in a state of flux, as per the Founding Father's intent that it be amendable; contrary to the demands of the "dead heads" who seem to write so often for the Heritage Society. The Constitution is a document subject to interpretation of those who find themselves on the Supreme Court in different eras and times and it has been so from the very beginning; it is not a new notion. In fact, that process began almost immediately with the first ten amendments which we call our Bill of Rights; all essential to the idea and promise of the United States of America.

Those who actually think every word of the Constitution apples directly to every aspect of a nation in 2010–a densely populated, urban, interdependent, techno-industrial-global society enmeshed in international quagmires–exactly as those words applied to a nation in 1810–a sparsely populated, rural, agrarian, rugged individualist society which gave the rest of the world little time or thought–are intellectually dead. Interpretation in the context of the times is a hallmark of the brilliance of the US Constitution.

As always–Its just another one of obamas S C A M S!! Shes just ANOTHER One thats been Bought & Paid for!! B.O. IS NOT Fooling anybody–WE the AMERICAN PEOPLE Know exactlly why she was chosen!! I Knew who his choice would be as soon as i heard they states from which they came!! And i had never even heard their names, I knew nothing about any of them, But YET I knew his choice, How could that be?? Its all part of his GAME, And thats all America is to this man–A GAME!! And even if he is just a Puppet, he knows exactlly what is being done to America-And he LAUGHS in our faces ITS A SAD DAY FOR AMERICA! Deeper & deeper to the point of N O R E T U R N!!! Wake up America!!!—Fight this Evil!!!!–I M P E A C H N O W!! U S U P E R A

My comment is that I find the Supreme Court extremely troublesome, and personally consider it a weakness in our judicial system. I feel the problem lies in the fact that once seated, the Justice remains seated for the rest of his life. this puts the political faction into it, because a president, whether conservative or liberal, has the capability of putting his influence into an arena of influence which goes far beyond his own term of office. The most obvious example of this is the Warren court's ruling on abortion, which has put our entire nation in a state of immorality for many decades now. We, as a nation, have been forced to allow aborting infants, whether we agree or not, because of a liberal Court. It isn't that I'm against a Supreme Court – I am against the permanent seating of the Justices. Thank you for allowing me to speak about this.

As she spoke to accept her nomination, I heard Ms. Kagan refer to the United States as a "Constitutional Democracy".

We are not a Democracy – The United States of America is a constitutional REPUBLIC. Which means that we are not subject to majority rule.

The rights of the individual are to be protected whether the majority agrees with them or not. That's why we're seeing our right to practice religion being attacked almost daily as well as our right to wear the american flag on our shirts while the "majority" celebrates cinco de mayo?

Listen to what is being said and think carefully before you make statements that push us to a democracy.

The United States is the ONLY Constitutional Republic in the world and if we let the courts change it into a democracy, we'll never get it back.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Original Passage:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

— letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810

I realize that many who subscribe in lock-step thinking to each other at the Heritage Foundation see Jefferson as a wild-eyed "liberal" because he countenanced change… Well, he was a "liberal" In the same tradition as Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu. The statement (on Panel Four at the Jefferson Memorial [above]) is proof of the validity of liberalism. "Intellectual certainty (as in those who abhor change for the sake of not changing) is the end of knowledge" according to Edith Hamilton in her little book, SPOKESMEN FOR GOD. Some of you people really ought to read that book. It will be as good for you intellectually as a large dose of Black Draught would be for you physically!!

Washington has become a cesspool in part because of apathy on the part of citizens and in part because of the ignorance of citizens. We put crap in and expect something different to come out. Expecting the Senate to act responsibly and carry out their role of "advice and consent" is like expecting a weasel not to eat the chickens in the hen house. Perhaps the Senate would be better understood if the name was changed to "cheap trick" I would like to know what she believes "is the right direction" for the court.

Cronyism is Obama's middle name. Ms. Kagan was the dean where Barry was a prof. Barry has been appointing academics for many posts and they do not have real life experience, to use to make a decision. This is where this country is today. These guys have had their pointy heads in books and print alone is not an answer to a problem. The consequence' the recession has been deepened and extended. Ms Kagan has little or no judicial experience, no judicial decision making skills [except how to treat a university student in the academic world]. Aside from her writings, what is there to hold a confirmation hearing on ? Conservatives like Mr. Hatch [who is a very respectful person] will compliment her for being nominated and not much more. Like the previous nominee and as this article says, Ms. Kagan will basically denounce her writings to get confirmed. The next Barry supreme court nominee will be the fight and Barry is holding that name back as that Liberal will change the balance of the court. The same drive by media who denounced George Bush's Cronie selection, with no experience on the bench, has their template – Ms Kagan is a "Consensus Builder". Confirmed.

I have a major problem with any Justice, no matter how fair, having a lifetime appointment over the highest court in the country. That is just asking for abuses of power. There should be term limits set for them the same as POTUS.

At the Senate hearings on the confirmation for Ms. Kagan, she should be asked the simple question: ":Will you promise to specifically apply the meaning of the Constitution on every court case vote, or will you vote based on your own personal desires to achieve your own goals for society."

"A simple Yes or No answer is requested".

If the answer is NO, she should be denied a YES vote at the heariang..

Funny how leftist/progressive activists and radicals always think they are the answer to everyones problems, and totally screw up things in the process. Their goal is always "to make things equal". HINT: You can not legislate wealth, nor greatness, nor happiness, NOR EQUAL OUTCOME. You can not GIVE TO ONE WITHOUT TAKING FROM ANOTHER AND CALL THAT "FAIRNESS". Let us not count out the LEFTS' PROPENSITY TO RULE OVER EVERYONE! JUST LIKE OBAMA, A SELF PROCLAIMED DICTATOR CALLING THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIS SOCIALIST POLICIES RACISTS AND TEABAGGERS(LIKE BARNEY FRANK). ONCE A COMMUNITY AGITATOR, ALWAYS A COMMUNITY AGITATOR AND WHAT WE REALLY NEEDED AND "THOUGHT WE HAD" IS A L E A D E R !!

One wonders if Ms. Kagan considers Islamic jihadists as "despised and disadvantaged".

Is it really up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in favor of "the despised and disadvantaged"? Justice is supposed to be blind. Justice isn't supposed to be peeking out from under her blindfold to see if a petitioner is "despised or disadvantaged". Justice is supposed to consider the legal validity of a petitioner's plea, not the social status of the petitioner.

There can be valid reasons a person, such as a Timothy McVey, may be despised. Should justice have been tilted in his favor? Disadvantaged people can break the law as often as a person with all the advantages. Should they be excused from their crimes because they are poor? Should a wealthy person whose Constitutional rights were violated have their petition dismissed by the Court because of that person's advantages?

The law review article attributed to Ms. Kagan, if correctly cited and attributed, is a very revealing point of view and one with which I am very uncomfortable.

Since Justice is no longer blind but partial, I'm not looking for a break in the liberal direction of the Supreme Court any time soon. As long as they continue to interpret "from the bench", U.S. Constitutional Law will remain handcuffed and our country will suffer as a result.

Rather than doing what is correct and voting for who is the right person for the job and for America, many Republicans will cave and vote yes because they don't want to look bad or be perceived as being mean spirited or not politically correct. All that should matter is whoever is elected must or should use the Constitution as their guiding principles. When you look over this great land of ours do you mean to tell me, she, Kagan, represents the best we have, is she the most qualified? I think not! I know there are many others more qualified and we should take the time to find them. The Republicans should mount a challenge and fight for what is best for America and not what is best for Obama.

In regards to former Sen. Meese…I totally agree that an inexperienced person is going to be appointed to the highest court in the land. But it DOES NOT surprise me, the people elected the least experienced man to be President and NOW we are paying the consequences. Are the majority going to be heard? Are the majority going to be addressed? I doubt it, we weren't listened to on Health Care Reform, why should the Democratic Senators listen to us now? This Nominee has no interest in the Constitution..how does she even get this far? We know the answer to that…our President doesn't have any respect to our Constitution…

While a socialistic court was my single most fearsome item surrounding the Barrack H. Obama campaign several years ago I don't feel secure that the conservative element within our Senate body has the strengh to reject. O they will make a lot of fuss about this or that, but in the long run this inexperienced letigator will be confirmed. All we can hope for is that she will realize the higher calling our Supreme Court truely is and vote the law and not her heart.

The question will be, "Can the Real Republicans stave off the RINO'S and the LIbs?" It will be a great debate if the Real Republicans will stand their ground and fire at will, they are after all on a precipice with their backs to the fall but should they make the stand their efforts will inspire further votes at the polls in November, that is if we are going to be allowed a election….One should never take their rights for granted.

You believe the Constitution is a living breathing doccument that should mirror what the norms of "today." I agree. You seem to have forgotten whaat you said about our Founding Fathers being intelligent enough to give us a way to keep the Constitution in harmony with the times. As you said it is by amending the words to meet today's standard. It is not by allowing judges to foist their interpretation as to any meaning. We would be better off if judges determine amendment or not and then send that back to the Congress. Too many times have judges amended what was said and too many times they have hurt society in general.

In my assessment Kagan is as unqualified be a Supreme Court judge as Barry is to serve as the President, and haven’t we had enough of the man-child’s lack of experience and overall qualification for the rest of our natural lives?

Reading the background information on Fox News website this morning I was able to destroy this person’s little known works as equally un-American as Barry’s has been. A quick review of the “Poison Ivy League” degree, having worked as a law professor (at that location), working as the Dean of the Harvard School of Law, fighting against military recruiters on campus, working for Goldman Sachs and the shadier side of the Clinton administration and being lesbian as well as absolutely NO experience as a judge of anything!

She possesses the tangential view of capitalism in which Goldman Sachs “wins” regardless of their risk assessment on highly risky investments such as the Mexican bond debacle in which they asked Congress to bail them out of a $25M loss in the mid 1990’s. The Republican controlled Congress voted “NO” so Clinton came through for them by having the Secretary of the Treasury grant an open line of credit for the Mexican government in the amount of $25M to pay back his big financial campaign contributors. Kagan apparently has the skewed understanding of capitalism in which either the federal government gets to choose the winners and the losers (and of course Goldman Sachs wins regardless of their lack of due diligence on highly risky investments) which ultimately means that those of us who regularly pay our taxes simply gave money to Goldman Sachs on a number of occasions thru a conduit called our federal government.

Kagan has a number of previous decisions against her albeit none of them from the bench. Deciding on a perverse lifestyle of human sexuality (lesbianism), deciding against the U. S. Military’s ability to recruit freely on campus, working to get taxpayer money for Goldman Sachs (either as one of their employees or as a member of the Clinton administration and, of course, her association with Barry.

Then I read the background provided by the Heritage Foundation and learned she would have a strong tendency to lean to the strategy of deciding cases based upon which client she views as “despised and disadvantaged” rather than by applying the rule of law as she evaluates opposing party’s legal arguments. We have no need for such a person on the SCOTUS.

She sounds more qualified to be a sitting judge for some level of court in Iran, NOT the United States!

To Jim in Fl. Our Constitution IS NOT EVOLVING! It IS WHAT IT IS…there to protect the citizens of this country from government encroachment into our lives. The men who wrote it understood ''nothing is more detrimental to the country's survival than a runamok government".. It is quite unfortunate after 200 years and the building of the stongest country on the planet in that short time THROUGH CONSERVATIVE VALUES AND CAPITALISM, we still have braindead individuals demanding EQUAL RIGHTS for "whomever"! What they are really demanding is EQUAL OUTCOMES which is a total impossibility. when Obama screams for EQUALITY, this is exactly what he wants. OK MR OBAMA, I want a house EXACTLY like the one BARBARA STREISAND lives in and I want the same amount of money she has…its my RIGHT to demand this cause YOU SAID YOU WANT EQUALITY and so do I!!

In the course of the destiny of man, there comes the occasion of facing the cold stark reality that separates God's design upon mankind and Man's perception of what truth is. In the impeachment hearing of Bill Clinton, where he stated "it depends on what your definition of is is", gives pause to the true nature of a given set of values bestowed upon human kind, not created nor invented by man, but merely fashioned from an “original set of guidelines, such as the “Ten Commandants” . Hence, we can take stock in the 'word of God" as the most accurate and final determinant as to the basis of values.

In historical observations there have been many variances on this gift to human kind known as values and "truths", yet somehow man finds a way to invalidate these principals. In a cacophony of conflagration, man attempts to deviate from the truth to establish a new set of truths, which are really no truths at all, but rather a mutated movement towards a peculiar agenda. Abraham Lincoln once said, “Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.” Mans sordid attempt at changing values are as deceptive as the serpent. The word Gay is likening to this deception. By definition Gay is a pleasurable word to resemble joy and fun combined. Unfortunately, in the 70’s the word has come to represent a different thing, so as to relieve the real pain associated with the word “homosexual” or “queer” To some the word still represents its true definition but unfortunately to millions and millions of others it is a way to soften a very evil abomination, of the true design of mankind.

Likewise, to the unsuspecting eye, Supreme Court Justices with deviate agendas/values can alter our heritage and deceive many naive minds, by “interpreting the Constitution and its meaning so as to justify a socialistic agenda, contrary to our democracy and its by-product “liberty”. Our Constitution is not up for interpretation, but stands as a benchmark of comparative law, so as to compare the errancy in proposed law or violations thereof to the emblem of truth. That is and was the purpose of designing such a magnificent wording fashioned no less by, once again, the “word of God” The Constitution is not designed to change with time, just as God’s laws do not change, for if this was the intent, there would be no law, there would be no “benchmark” by which to measure right and wrong! Truths and the meaning of value would be up to the interpretation of man. The more perverted the man the more perverted the truth!

Time does not change values, only man does, thus it becomes the duty of ALL God- minded men to defend those values and truths that are worthy of God’s creation…Mankind! Thereby preserving for all generations, the benchmark of truth, by which all woefully despicable men may be judged and deemed unworthy of leadership or to set in a seat of judgment…from the President of the United States to the members of the Supreme Court

SOOO, the court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.”? …if we could just get rid of that pesky constitution, all those rights and laws make it so difficult to take from the rich and give to the poor, make certain no one makes too much, saves too much, buys their own health care, etc..

Talk about the impossible dream?! For years, the Senate has not given us, the majority of the people, what we want, especially since the Statist far Left minority, such as Reid, Pelosi, Obama, and their Statist vote buying and selling, freedom robbing, power and money grabbing Comrades have been ruling not only the Senate but also both the House and the White House!

Or are we supposed to have short memories and forget how such Statists in the Senate, not to mention their Comrades in the House and the White House, are not only ignoring us but also even attacking us and altogether showing how corruptly greedy for power and money they can be?

A recent example of this is the recent example of the so-called "health care bill" which in fact did not "pass" in accordance with the Constitution and rules and procedures in it, but was instead so very arrogantly, corruptly, abusively, dishonestly, and flat-out Unconstitutionally concoted by such Statist politicians as Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and their Comrades, (and their "crony capitalist" Comrades and beneficiaries), who finally decided that all they had to do "deem it as passed" in order to force it on us against our will, and so again trash our Constitution as if it is "toilet paper" as badly or worse than anything Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton were ever accused of or actually did.

Or are we supposed to forget that also, and be gullible fools enough to actually expect the Senate, and, for that matter, the House and the White House, to actually heed the will of the people for a real change instead of their comming up with ever more examples of how determined they are to have their Statist power and money grabbing way?

Same as a definition of insanity is "Continuing to do the same thing, expecting different results", so also it is similarly insane to expect a bunch of Statists to stop doing their Statist things in their march for the government power growing and liberty decreasing results such Statists have always brought throughout history to this day, and continue to bring.

We. the people, can and must be the ones to end such insanity, in any and every peaceful way we can do so, before we all learn the hard way something which the vast majority of legal immigrants already know, and that is that we can and will continue to lose our freedoms, resources, and security to such government power growing Statist politicians, and their "activist Judge" Comrades, at all levels here in the U.S., and so we must do so now, or else this generation will both suffer the loss of freedom and hear following generations ask "Where were you when they were taking freedom away, and why didn't you stop them while you could?"

My questions to a supreme court nominee would be; do you accept federalism as debated by our nation's founders, both federalist and anti-federalist? Is the constitution subject to change with the times? This popularized leftist view opens the door to nationalized socialism. "What?" they say. "you're a fear monger!" If it takes this to wake people from their Utopian fantasy, so be it. Germany suffered a terrible horror in the last century because self-righteous social engineers exploited the ignorant masses. As a result, post war Germans designed a constitution similarly modeled after our own. Claiming the U.S. Constitution's founding principles are archaic is ignoring our founders uniquely sound wisdom. But such ego-century boastfulness certainly allows the left to repeat history's tragic lessons. Let it be known, however, that I retain the natural right to defend my home and community.

I fear, Ms Kagan, will follow in the footsteps of Sotomayor and respond to questions with the pablum that seems to satisfy senators of the left and, since, the Republicans are not even close to stopping her, she will be confirmed.

"The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison in the Federalist # 45

He essentially went on to say federal government is limited to providing for a common defense and managing foreign relationships.States retain power over all domestic affairs to include public services such as police, firefighting and possibly HEALTH CARE, if the latter is desired by its respective residents!

Why does it matter to anyone who he appoints? Nothing he has done or will do is binding or legal. Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President. see: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ (and lots of other sources including his wife, his grandmother, the Kenyan government, the framers of our constitution, our State Department documents pertaining to citizenship, Supreme Court references, and the Senate Bill sponsored by Mr. Obama addressing John McCain's citizenship.)

Our Constitution requires that the President and Vice-President be a natural born citizen which is one born in the country to two citizen parents. Obama was born in Kenya. His Dad was a British/Kenyan subject. This is why Mr. Obama wrote on his web site that he was born under British jurisdiction. He has since been a citizen of Indonesia. There is a better than even chance that he is not even a US citizen.

So, before you get all worked up over his appointments and all of the other stuff he's throwing at us, address this issue. You'll discover that it's time for some major house cleaning in the good old USA.

Frankly, I don't see the way the American system works that much different from the Canadian. The Canadian Supreme Court is appointed – yes, much like the U.S. – by the sitting Prime Minister.

The Supreme Court in Canada issues fiats that the Canadian Government must adhere to. So does the SCOTUS. Both do so based on their 'present day' interpretation of the constitution, or how they believe it is to be interpreted.

Competency, blind justice, republic or democracy, the consequences are the same.

I must admit, I did not foresee the U.S. sliding this quickly into the same socialist mess that is Canada and Europe. I really believed the separation of powers would slow or prevent the decent.

[…] is to decide who the despised and disadvantaged are? Morning Bell: Former Attorney General Ed Meese on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. by Conn Carroll Though Ms. Kagan has not written […]

The Constitution has many times been ammended to the changing times and the society of that time which is why our constittution is allowed to be ammended. Our forefathers had the foresight to realize that Society would progress and change and that ammendments would be neccesary. I think both the original intent and the societal changes need to be looked to determine if an ammendment is neccesary.

The nomination and possible move to the SCOTUS by Ms Kagan is wrong on a slew of levels.

Unfortunately some very significant areas such as Same Sex Marriage, Marriage, and Gays in the military probably will not be among the areas of inquiry in the Senate Hearings. As a footnote I can not help but wonder how she might rule on a rehash of Wade vs Roe.

Our nation is wallowing, it is leaking at a million points. There is little if any stability of government anywhere in our country. This is a fact at every level of government.

Outright theft and other flagrant lawlessness is an every day revelation in almost any state, city, county and federal agency and the halls of Congress on any given day.

I really do not think that Ms Kagan exemplifies in any way the kind of hand that we need as our next Judge on the SCOTUS.

in order for the constitution to be ammended this requires a 2/3 majority in Congress, in short the Supreme Court cannot change it on a whim. Obvioulsy, a 2/3 majority requires bipartisianship on both sides of the aisle. For those of you who are complaining about our government, how many of you have written to our representatives not just to complain but with real workable solutions? This is just a question and nothing more because I honestly do not know.

Also take a look at her position on "free speech", she has indicated in writing that she is in favor of prohibiting "hate speech". And of course, it would be her interpretation of just what hate speech should be censored, prosecuted, condemned, or ???? What next?

In addition, she was the one who tried to ban military recruiting on the campus of Harvard. The operative word was recruiting, the military was not forcing anyone to join, just giving the student options, she didn't like the military, the same beautiful men and women who give up their lives to defend our liberty and she doesn't want a Harvard student "the smart ones" subjected to their recruitment, as if their minds are not sufficient enough to make their own choices and do it logically, I guess they didn't learn much at that bastion of liberal education now did they??

We have a fundamental problem here. Presidents are making nominations based on tilting the court – This is destructive and fundamentaly wrong. The goal of a "Supreme Court" should be to interpet the constitution and the law. A better process would be to nominate the top 10 or 15 qualified people and then grade them by their past decisions, the point system would be set up to give them points as their decisions upheld the constitution and our republic. the individual receiving the highest point score would be up for a confirmation vote. Ms Kagan accurately said the process is a "vapid and hollow charade" – and I'll bet she is now ,all to happy to participate.

While I firmly believe that serving as a judge is essential for a Supreme Court justice, it is important to remember that this is not required by the Constitution. Further, in order to promote a balanced argument, it is important to remember that many great justice such as Chief Justice William Renquist had not served on the bench prior to their appointment. Additionally, appointing justices to life tenures is intended to avoid politicizing the judicial process. Finally, for the most part, there is a much greater consensus among the justices than is realized. It is only a relatively small number of cases that divide the justices often along political lines.

Please keep this in mind in order to provide reasoned oposition to Kagan's appointment.

Is Ken Jarvis saying women are despised and disadvantaged? Being silly, Ken.

As a woman, I believe we need someone qualified with significant knowledge, respect and faith in the American Constitution, regardless of gender. Someone who appreciates and respects the strength of the document that empowers individual freedoms and liberties to all citizens. Doesn't seem this nominee possesses these qualifications.

It is really great to read all the opinions here and the lack of trust in Government, but it is a little sad to read how utterly uniformed and uneducated most of these comments are as to how our system of government actually functions.

[…] Former Attorney General Ed Meese on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan May 10, 2010 By CMAC According to multiple sources, at 10 am today President Barack Obama will announce his decision to n… The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, […]

Let me get this straight. She has NEVER tried a case in court, and she is in CHARGE of the Harvard law school. Sounds like the president's qualifications…never run a McDonalds, and now he is running our country…… She hates the military, by keeping the recruiters off the Harvard campus, because SHE thinks the "do't ask, don't tell" policy isn't right. She is a CLOSET lesbian, and will not be partial to gays and lesbians in her court cases that she has NEVER TRIED in any court before?? This sounds just like Obama's qualifications to be president. Our country is REALLY doing well……isn't it??

The president appoints the Supreme Court nominee and Congress then has to approve the nominee. I think with any system you come up with it can be tilted. For example on the point system who would be the one grading the Judges?

Kagan is a radical socialist without any respect for Consitutional law in the same mold of her nominator,the community agitator. She has no actual experience for the SCOTUS job. This is what we get when we voted for "hope & change". It's worse than appointing your brother Attorney General without ever trying a case in court as JFK did.

[…] Justice Rehnquist also had not served as a judge prior to being nominated by President Reagan. Former Attorney General Ed Meese, published yesterday on the Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog, suggested that the similarities […]

[…] Kagan's record is largely inscrutable—but she did come out in favor of less limited inquiries into Supreme Court nominees in the University of Chicago Law Review in 1995. See also Ed Meese on the nomination. […]

Lately, HF has taken to removing instead of posting my comments, which follow HF's rules as well as anybody else's comments, which HF does post, but of course, just like our Founding Fathers and other patriots vis a vis the press, and considering that I otherwise support The Heritage Foundation (including financially) and my membership of it, I will just keep trying anyway.

If any and I mean any Republicans sign on to this, another Obamanation they must be removed from office at the earliest possible moment. Just like what happened in Utah with their R.I.N.O. Get rid of these so-called Republicans.

If any and I mean any of the Republican Senators vote for this Obamanation they need to be removed from office at the earliest possible moment. Just like what happened in Utah. Throw the anti-Americans out of office. End their career.

IT WAS ORIGINAL INTENT REGARDS THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE WHICH ALLOWED THE INHABITANTS OF THIS BLESSED LAND TO ACHIEVE THE FORMATION OF A ROBUST, VIBRANT, MIDDLE CLASS.

THE BUTLER DECISION AND THE SUBSEQUENT HELVERING AND STEWART MACHINE CO. DECISION MOVED THE CONGRESS INTO THE WELL OF SUSTENANCE AND DETERMINE WHO AND WHAT SHOULD GET THE BUCKS SO LONG AS IT WAS FOR THE "GENERAL WELFARE."

GO TO BUGLER.ORG AND READ TREATMENT TITLED "THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE."

IF WE AS A PEOPLE DO NOT GET BACK TO ENUMERATED POWERS THEN WE WILL CONTINUE THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL INTO OBLIVION.

YOU CAN NOT ALLOW ELECTED "REPRESENTATIVES" DECIDE WHAT IS BEST TO DO WITH YOUR MONEY.

WE BECAME NUMBER ONE IN TERMS OF MIDDLE CLASS ENHANCEMENT UNTIL OUR ELECTED "REP;REPRESENTATIVES"

FOUND OUT THEY COULD BRIBE US WITH OUR OWN MONEY."

ALL PEOPLE ARE BORN GOOD. BUT IF YOU PUT THEM IN CHARGE OF YOU AND YOUR LIFE THEN YOU ARE DOOMED TO SPEND THE REST OF YOUR LIFE LIVING AS A PERSON IN WHAT WAS ONCE KNOWN IN JOLLY OLD ENGLAND AS THE LOWER CLASS.

LETS HEAR IT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK AND ALLOW US TO DO WHAT IS BEST TO DO FOR OUR OWN "GENERAL WELFARE." JWB

Ms Kagan is a RadLib operative. She became a lawyer to fulfill a political agenda. Her mind is filled with Marxist theories and her entire career as a so-called law professor is to figure out how to transform American life and culture by means of the law into Communism. This is her mission.

I wish fervently that Ann Coulter be allowed to interrogate this woman, Kagan.

Since we all know that this won't happen, even though rational inquiry and the ideal of healthy political debate demand such an encounter, we can only hope that the Republican senators attack Kagan relentlessly, thoroughly, and pitilessly. It doesn't matter that the RadLib press will excoriate them. Indeed, we should have another million patriot Tea Party during this hearing. And let's have Ann Coulter, who really should sit on the Supreme Court, lead it, along with Judge Bork!

"Despised and disadvantaged"? Seems to me that Kagan as Dean of Harvard Law made un-Constitutional policy that OUR United States Military, and its recruiters, are "Despised and disadvantaged" at Harvard Law. Seems I have heard that she was found WRONG in a U.S. supreme Court (small 's' in supreme according to Article III of this Constitution) decision that was 8 to 0 against her.

Maybe that might be enough for "Colonel" Lindsey Graham, JAG Corps (a.k.a. RINO Republican Senator Graham) to be persuaded to vote AGAINST her in the Judiciary Committee. If all the other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee vote against Kagan, her nomination dies in committee. On the Sotomayor nomination, Senator Graham was the ONLY Republican on the Judiciary Committee, so her nomination survived the Judiciary Committee and went to the full Senate where Sotomayor was confirmed.

Tea Party and other American Patriots need to flood Senator Graham's fax, phone lines, offices in Washington and in South Carolina to "persuade" him to vote AGAINST Kagan in the Judiciary Committee.

I would like more information on Kagan's writing bemoaning the decline of Socialism. I heard about this and haven't been able to find more about it. Most people do not understand what Socialism is and how it threatens individual freedom and liberty. To me Socialism is anti-American and is espoused by Americans who have disdain for America.

No question that POTUS is replacing Stevens with another liberal, one that will outlive most of us. If that concept, along with campaign contributions to his political campaigns, and experience as a college administrator are all that is needed to qualify one to sit on the highest court in the land, I suppose we are stuck with it.

She is certain to be confirmed since there will be little grounds to deny her based on whatever comes out of congressional inquiry. She has no skeletons in actual judicial forum, and most certainly will either deflect some questions regarding how she "may" rule on a certain case because it "may" come up before the SCOTUS or just out-and-out lie; telling the congress what they want to hear.

Kagan has not endorsed the view that the court should help the despised and disadvantaged.

Heres a quote frm Rush Limbaugh clearing it up:

"So if you read her law review article, I found the section here in which she refers to "despised and disadvantaged." She was quoting Thurgood Marshall and saying that if he had had his way, the court would only have existed to help the "despised and disadvantaged" "

Good enough to teach it at America's premier law school but not good enough to practice it at the Supreme Court is a logical inconsistency the likes of which may be worthy of debate, but not relevant to the outcome.

If one is adequate at teaching the Constitution and its parameters, why would one not be capable of administering it?

Obama displaying his hypocracy once again. Pull it up on YouuTube: Obama said during the presidential debates that he would not have nominated conservative Clarence Thomas due to lack of judicial experience. Now he nominates the liberal Kagan, who has zero.

"And according to the latest Quinnipiac University Poll by a 7 point margin more Americans believe the Supreme Court should only consider the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution instead of considering changing times and current realities."

Does that mean as a black man I would be considered 3/5ths of a person?

The Supreme Court should limit itself to matters of process, not outcomes. If people are secure in thier access to the poltical process, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc., the court has done its job. The Constitution, above all else, is a document concerned with the process of government, not the results of government. While the Consitution does protect specific things such as property, and due process, this is because those things were, and are, necessary to the functioning of a democracy. This is why laws against segregation and gender were rightly found to be unconstituional. Laws discriminating on the basis of race and gender truncate the political process by abridging the right of certain people to participate in it.

It is when the court intervenes regarding the results of the democratic process that the trouble begins. Where new rights are discovered, democracy shrinks. Each new right narrows the horizon of democracy by removing the issue from public debate. Where normally an issue would find equilibrium over time, the process is disrupted and aborted when the court intervenes. The struggle over the issue does not end however. It simply shifts to the arena of the courts. The bitter struggle over issues like abortion are a direct result of the court intervening in the issue prematurely before the issue has had time to be digested politically. It is because the court has trespassed into areas properly left to the legislature that the court has become a political institution. But it is a poltical institution like no other. It is an institution with absolute authority, beyond the reach of voters. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, it is beyond the reach of government. It is the most profoundly undemocratic institution in the United States but increasingly, under liberal justices, it has become the most powerful. Under justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, democracy will shrink even further. Every new right comes at the expense of the voter. That is the irony of the left. They would destroy democracy in the name of expanding it.

Great comment, but you mistakenly used the term "democracy" in the third paragraph of your opinion. The form of government of the USA is a constitutional republic. Our founders knew the difference between a republic and a democracy and wrote about it.

"[In a democracy] a common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual." James Madison – Federalist No. 10

"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." John Adams – An Essay on Man's Lust for Power – August 29, 1763

"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind." Thomas Jefferson – letter to William Hunter – March 11, 1790

"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatable with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison – Federalist No. 10 – November 23, 1787

"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." John Adams – letter to John Taylor – April 15, 1814

"A lady asked Dr. Franklin, 'Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?'–'A republic,' replied the Doctor, 'if you can keep it.'" – Benjamin Franklin – Farrand's Records of the Federal Convetion of 1787

"There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; for the true idea of a republic is "an empire of laws, and not of men." That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics." – John Adams – Thoughts on Government – 1776

"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." – George Washington – First Inaugural Address – April 30, 1789

"The genius of Republican liberty, seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people; but, that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period, the trust should be placed not in a few, but in a number of hands." – James Madison – Federalist No. 37

[…] article, where she agreed with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged,” rather than to uphold the rule of law. As a law clerk in 1987, she said that she was […]

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.